Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49641
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain nebm.ist.utl.pt from 193.136.128.21 cause and error)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To: "Stas Malyshev" <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <AANLkTimuWDV=9AA63_9M6cQSp9riCPE214sUNdoV3tQn@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C873C0F.1010200@zend.com>
 <AANLkTimdCnW3ABq5QSnBa78H14e2LPBa=Kt2txU0sTD4@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C879613.7090709@zend.com>
 <AANLkTim-dHYyJxX2R3-PBVqqa3sv3+zKYr7zw7QvyngJ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C887D2B.2000605@zend.com> <4C8AC526.7000505@sugarcrm.com>
 <AANLkTikpCGj2zVNQmC1gUWaRSpsQD=qNrETi90wj_No7@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C8B6168.30504@mohiva.com>
 <AANLkTinuD_Aga-CbsbSq-23MTyOLPGrBEswTm=JtBY0H@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C8BC81E.8000605@sugarcrm.com>
 <AANLkTinFSqCFUE3P5XvjJPwUGZqYrQR_9VHAXAWSL=rv@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20100913145703.0d226d90@zend.com>
 <AANLkTi=KCpgNwhq55+f9+60K=y197HTbifaAd7=9qPop@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20100913172559.0d2277d0@zend.com>
 <op.vizacsuhidpuyk@cataphract-old.dulce.lo.geleia.net>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20100913183427.0d2277d0@zend.com>
 <op.vizeorx8idpuyk@cataphract-old.dulce.lo.geleia.net>
 <4C8E6B6F.4080308@sugarcrm.com>
 <op.vizk9rxvidpuyk@cataphract-old.dulce.lo.geleia.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:34:22 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: =?iso-8859-15?Q?N=FAcleo_de_Eng=2E_Biom=E9dica_?=
 =?iso-8859-15?Q?do_IST?=
Message-ID: <op.viznfkg1idpuyk@cataphract-old.dulce.lo.geleia.net>
In-Reply-To: <op.vizk9rxvidpuyk@cataphract-old.dulce.lo.geleia.net>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.61 (Win32)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP Annotations RFC + Patch
From: glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt ("Gustavo Lopes")

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:02:34 +0100, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>  
wrote:

> Hi!
>
>> The best (in the sense of "most similar to what we have today") syntax I
>> can think of is to define annotations exactly the same way was you'd
>> define arrays, but replace "array" with the annotation name (plus a
>> prefix). I think this looks like PHP:
>
> We have here at least two non-PHP constructs - %Name meaning "new Name"  
> and array syntax for parameters.

It's not an array syntax for parameters. Those would not be passed to a  
function, merely used to fill the fields of the annotation, like (object)  
array("a"=>1) creates a stdClass object with a field named "a" and value  
1. The difference would be we wouldn't be creating dynamic fields, but  
only filling defined ones.

>> could add a validate() method to ReflectionAnnotation (with an empty
>> default implementation) that subclasses could override to provide their
>> validation logic.
>
> When this validation logic will be called? On getAnnotation()? Then it  
> would be extremely wasteful - the annotation never changes but each time  
> is re-validated anew.
>

If I'm not mistaken, the current implementation instantiates an object  
each time getAnnotation() is called, but it was proposed to change this  
into a lazy-loading mechanism with the same instance returned every time  
for each annotation. In that case, we'd only need to validate that one  
time.

>> Fair enough, though I find surprising that "parent" forwards. But you'll
>> find that most users don't see LSB as a "scope that is forwarded" but
>> instead as some kind of inheritance mechanism. It also exposed the odd
>
> I don't know how you found out what "most users" of PHP's multi-million  
> user base think - how many millions of people did you ask? - but whoever  
> has wrong preconceptions about how it works should correct them by  
> reading the actual docs. Provided that the actual rule can easily fit on  
> a bumper sticker, I don't think it's too complex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)

In any case, the manual page could be improved. It has a vague statement  
"static:: does not work like $this for static methods! $this-> follows the  
rules of inheritance while static:: doesn't. This difference is detailed  
later on this manual page" followed only by examples.

-- 
Gustavo Lopes